DCT

2:25-cv-00796

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Remote Asset Management Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00796, E.D. Tex., 08/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are not residents of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district under the alien-venue rule.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet management platforms, software, and tracking devices infringe five U.S. patents related to mobile data management, trip status notification, and vehicle tracking.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue address systems for managing and communicating with mobile assets, such as vehicle fleets, to provide tracking, scheduling, and real-time operational support.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a Certificate of Correction was issued for U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 on June 25, 2013.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-09-18 Earliest Priority Date for ’751, ’586, and ’581 Patents
2001-09-17 Filing Date of application leading to ’586 Patent
2002-11-04 Priority and Filing Date of application leading to ’837 Patent
2005-10-31 Filing Date of application leading to ’751 Patent
2005-11-01 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586
2007-04-17 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,837
2008-06-20 Priority and Filing Date of application leading to ’968 Patent
2009-08-25 Filing Date of application leading to ’581 Patent
2009-09-29 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,593,751
2010-06-22 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968
2013-07-23 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
2025-08-14 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,206,837 - "Intelligent Trip Status Notification" (Issued Apr. 17, 2007)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the task of estimating a trip's time-of-arrival as "inconvenient and cumbersome" for a user in transit, noting that it often requires mental calculations and access to data (e.g., traffic reports) that may be unavailable or unsafe to obtain while operating a vehicle (Compl. ¶23; ’837 Patent, col. 1:32-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated method for providing trip status updates to a user's mobile device. The system receives the device's location and estimates time-of-arrival metrics by using "calendrical time (i.e., the time and date)" and historical travel data, thereby automating the estimation process and improving accuracy by considering factors like rush hour or holidays (’837 Patent, col. 2:4-15; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The solution aimed to provide more accurate and convenient travel time predictions than simple distance/speed calculations by incorporating historical and time-based statistical data, a key factor in real-world travel planning (’837 Patent, col. 2:4-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a location of a mobile communications device that is in transit to a destination
    • Estimating the time-of-arrival bounds for the device at the destination for a confidence interval based on the location and at least one historical travel time statistic
    • Sending the time-of-arrival bounds to the mobile device

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,751 - "Conducting Field Operations Using Handheld Data Management Devices" (Issued Sep. 29, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem wherein field personnel, particularly those with less experience, may lack access to the "critical information or support" needed to accurately perform tasks like assessments, estimates, or troubleshooting in the field (Compl. ¶33; ’751 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a handheld device is equipped with industry-specific programs to guide a user through a field operation. The system facilitates two-way communication between the handheld device and remote resources (e.g., servers or experts), enabling real-time data synchronization, analysis, and support (’751 Patent, col. 4:15-30; Fig. 13).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for empowering field workers with portable, guided expertise and real-time connectivity, aiming to improve the accuracy and efficiency of remote operations (’751 Patent, col. 1:49-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Claim 6 requires a method for managing data during a field operation, comprising the steps of:
    • Providing a handheld field data management device to a user, configured to manage data collected at a field operation location
    • Enabling the user to access instructions from the device to assist in finding the field operation location
    • Enabling the user to access instructions from the device to assist in collecting industry-specific data at the location
    • Enabling the user to access instructions from the device to assist in communicating with a remote server before, during, and after the data collection

U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 - "Field Assessments Using Handheld Data Management Devices" (Issued Nov. 1, 2005)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’751 patent, describes systems and methods for conducting field assessments using handheld devices. It addresses the need for field personnel to have access to industry-specific information and support to render more efficient and accurate assessments by using a handheld device that can communicate with remote resources (’586 Patent, col. 3:17-36).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' fleet management software and applications of infringing by providing systems for executing field operations using handheld devices (Compl. ¶¶42, 48).

U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 - "System and Methods for Management of Mobile Field Assets via Wireless and Held Devices" (Issued Jul. 23, 2013)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes systems for managing mobile assets, such as personnel and inventory, via wireless handheld devices. The invention focuses on communication between enterprise servers and field devices to support dispatch, data synchronization, and logistics, facilitating real-time access to remote programs and information for field personnel (’581 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 21 and 22 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations target Defendants' systems for collecting and communicating field data based on geographical location via handheld devices (Compl. ¶¶52, 56, 58).

U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968 - "System and Method for Navigation Tracking of Individuals in a Group" (Issued Jun. 22, 2010)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for permissive navigational tracking where a sending party can selectively transmit its navigation data to a receiving party over a period of time. This allows a master device to maintain and display the geographic positions of other devices in a group, facilitating coordinated movement and tracking (’968 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Defendants' tracking systems infringe by providing for selective transmission of navigation data from a sending party (e.g., a tracked vehicle) to a receiving party (e.g., a fleet manager) (Compl. ¶¶62, 66, 68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the Accused Products as the "Ram Tracking fleet management platform and tracking solutions" (Compl. ¶16). This includes, but is not limited to, the RAM Tracking Fleet Management software, GPS Fleet Tracking, Job Scheduling and Tracking App, Ram Tracking ELD, Ram Assist, GPS Tracking devices, and Dash cams (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are alleged to constitute a system for managing vehicle fleets. Their functionalities include performing wireless communications using various protocols (e.g., LTE, 802.11), generating and transmitting data packets, tracking vehicle locations via GPS, and providing software applications for job scheduling and management (Compl. ¶¶16-18). The complaint alleges these products are advertised, sold, and distributed in the United States through Defendants' website (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external exhibits for detailed infringement contentions, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶29, 39). The analysis below is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’837 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’837 patent (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The narrative suggests the infringement theory centers on the Accused Products' GPS Fleet Tracking functionality, which inherently involves receiving a vehicle's location while in transit and, presumably, calculating and communicating an estimated time of arrival to a fleet manager or customer. The core of the alleged infringement appears to be the system's automated process of generating and providing trip status notifications based on location and other data inputs (Compl. ¶¶16, 19, 22).
  • ’751 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 6 of the ’751 patent (Compl. ¶¶38-39). The infringement theory appears to focus on products like the "Job Scheduling and Tracking App," which allegedly provide a platform for conducting field operations. The theory suggests these applications guide field personnel (e.g., drivers making deliveries or service calls), enable them to collect and input data (e.g., job status, delivery confirmation), and communicate that data with a remote server or fleet management platform, thereby practicing the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶16, 32, 36).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’837 patent may be whether the Accused Products' ETA calculations are "based on... at least one historical travel time statistic" as required by claim 1. The analysis may explore whether using real-time traffic data, which reflects current and near-term conditions, meets the "historical statistic" limitation.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’751 patent and its relatives (’586, ’581), a key issue may be whether the functionality of the accused "Job Scheduling and Tracking App" rises to the level of the claimed "field operation" or "field assessment." The court may need to determine if routine logistics and delivery tracking constitute the guided, industry-specific assessment processes described in the patents, such as construction or HVAC analysis (’751 Patent, col. 4:1-3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’837 Patent:

  • The Term: "historical travel time statistic" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because infringement may depend on how the Accused Products calculate travel times. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if modern, real-time traffic data (which may implicitly rely on historical patterns) falls within the claim's scope, or if the claim requires explicit use of a stored database of past travel times for specific routes and times.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not narrowly define "statistic," which may support an interpretation that any data incorporating past travel patterns, even implicitly within a real-time traffic algorithm, could suffice.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives examples of "calendrical time categories (e.g., rush hour, holiday, off-peak, etc.)" and discusses using a "database with tables of historical travel time data" (’837 Patent, col. 3:28-34). This language may support an argument that the term requires a system that explicitly queries a pre-compiled database of historical data categorized by specific times and dates.

For the ’751 Patent:

  • The Term: "field operation" (from claim 6)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction will be central to determining whether the accused fleet management and job tracking functionalities infringe. The dispute may turn on whether the term is limited to the specific types of technical "assessments" detailed in the patent or broadly covers any commercial activity conducted remotely.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "field operations" is used generally in the background, and the claims are not explicitly limited to any single industry, which could support a broader reading covering various remote commercial activities (’751 Patent, col. 1:24-27).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of "field operations" such as "construction industry project analysis, HVAC system analysis, project management, equipment readiness inspection, troubleshooting, [and] inventory tracking" (’751 Patent, col. 4:1-5). This may support a narrower construction limited to these or similar types of technical or assessment-based tasks, as opposed to general-purpose delivery and logistics.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for the ’968 patent. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendants provide instructions, advertising, and technical support that guide users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶71-72). The contributory infringement claim alleges the Accused Products have special features "specially designed to be used in an infringing way" that are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶73).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’968 patent based on knowledge acquired "at least as of the date Defendants were notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶70). Willfulness is further alleged based on objective recklessness and a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others, including instructing its employees to not review the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶74-76).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "historical travel time statistic," as used in the ’837 patent, be construed to cover the methods used by modern fleet tracking systems, which may rely more on real-time traffic data than on stored databases of past travel times?
  2. A second key issue will be one of functional scope: Does the general commercial use of the accused "Job Scheduling and Tracking App" for fleet logistics and delivery management constitute the specific, guided "field operation" or "field assessment" methods disclosed in the ’751, ’586, and ’581 patents?
  3. A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be: What specific facts, beyond boilerplate allegations, support the claim that Defendants maintained a "policy or practice" of willful blindness toward the patent rights of others, as is required to prove the subjective prong of willfulness?